Journalists need to cover real energy stories

Voters have demanded we all move to less carbon-intensive fuels, and natural gas is the only near-term economically viable solution. Instead of blindly reporting environmentally sensational stories of flammable tap water, responsible California journalists should be reporting on legislation recently clearing the way for use of near-zero carbon-reclaimed natural gas in California, and on the work being done by the Air Resources Board to streamline certification of conversion technology to allow big rigs to run on natural gas. These are stories of real value but sadly don’t make for great entertainment.

John Reed

CEO,

North American Repower

Oceanside

JFracking endangers water

You don’t have to be an “enviro-nut” to realize that the fracking frenzy that has erupted in this country endangers the most basic of resources needed to sustain all life on the planet: water.

It boggles this conservative mind that your continuing and zealous editorial defense of the industry so often fails to mention all the facts — such as the high failure rate of drill casing concrete seals that allow fracking fluids and methane gas to travel up along the hole and into water-bearing formations.

Or the fact that each of the thousands of individual gas wellhead installations leaks vast quantities of methane directly into the atmosphere 24/7.

It isn’t just tap water affected by “existing local conditions” in Pennsylvania that now lights on fire. How about Wyoming and Colorado, where ranchers, farmers and wildlife are permanently affected by free-flowing streams that have been gasified by the escape of fracking industry pollutants?

Why haven’t you chosen to point out that the claimed economic benefits from this new boom are from exporting this national resource to nations such as China and India?

Gas companies thrive while water sources are regularly poisoned.

John Turner

San Diego

JDon’t believe the president

Regarding your editorial of Aug. 6 about Obama defending fracking safety, just a few words of caution: Never take the president’s word, or his surrogates’ regarding any sensitive subject such as this. Fracking is the bane of the environmentalists who are Obama’s sworn defenders and financiers.

Every commentator, including a few liberal ones, have stated that not approving the Keystone pipeline deal with Canada, which was just for the transport of oil, didn’t make any sense. Now we have an ostensibly positive statement about fracking. Big deal. Don’t believe it.

Confucius (or the Bard) has said: You can’t change the spots on a leopard. Obama and his minions will never change on oil drilling or fracking or whatever, come hell or high water. There will always be “something.” Take my word for it. Always wait for the other shoe to drop. And it will and there will also be no fracking, ever, on federal land.

Charles Hartman

San Marcos

JKeep fracking out of the state

I have yet to see the U-T write an editorial that supports Obamacare because of Obama’s statements about it.

So why do you see the administration’s “stepping forward to attest to fracking’s safety” as the final word on this extreme extraction process? In fact, three EPA studies that came close to completion found direct linkages to drinking water contamination, then got either put on hold, stopped or relegated back to the state to finish the work. Why? Because they found something that would tarnish the president’s “all of the above” energy nonstrategy.

But California’s issues differ somewhat from other parts of the country. We live in a drought-stricken area where agriculture, industry and consumers already compete for fresh water sources. Why should we now allocate huge amounts of water to extract an oil we can’t burn, then ship it to others to worsen climate change?

Why should California allow its land and air to become more polluted while its water is drawn down even more only for oil company profit?